The World Affairs Board is the premier forum for the discussion of the pressing geopolitical issues of our time. Topics include military and defense developments, international terrorism, insurgency & COIN doctrine, international security and policing, weapons proliferation, and military technological development.

Our membership includes many from military, defense, academic, and government backgrounds with expert knowledge on a wide range of topics. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so why not register a World Affairs Board account and join our community today?

Certainly not insignificant if we lead the developed world in mass shooting incidents. With the amount of focus on deaths by mass shootings we seem to be awfully okay with the number of incidents we experience compared to other countries.

I don't get it, what's wrong with taking steps like expanding background checks? No one but the extremes on both sides of the political spectrum is talking about the possibility of banning guns wholesale.

Have you bought a gun recently? What more background check do you want to have? What criteria do you want to use? Who do you want to disqualify from owning guns? How does this centralized federal database get its information? Who feeds it?

We don't need to be like Europe. France just shut down 3 mosques. Do you want our government to have that kind of power? Europe also has much lower corporate tax rates. Do we want to be like Europe? WE ARE NOT EUROPE! We are not perfect, but I like this place much better than Europe.

Certainly not insignificant if we lead the developed world in mass shooting incidents. With the amount of focus on deaths by mass shootings we seem to be awfully okay with the number of incidents we experience compared to other countries.

I don't get it, what's wrong with taking steps like expanding background checks? No one but the extremes on both sides of the political spectrum is talking about the possibility of banning guns wholesale.

"Leading the world" is a red herring.

The number of people who die in mass shootings is also a statistical non-issue.

Take the absolute worst case. Have a mass shooting every day. Have 10 people die in every mass shooting.

That's 3600 people dead a year.

That's the UPPER limit for mass shootings. More likely the number is around 500.

Even in the worst case scenario, Americans are 15 times more likely to die from just kidney diseases then they are from mass shootings.

Background checks and arms limitations also will not STOP mass shootings. They will reduce their intensity and frequency. That means you are imposing HUGE limitations on American rights, essentially equivalent to disarming Americans, to save, maybe, 200 lives a year.

That's not a reasonable trade-off.

It also is not the actual trade-off. The gun control lobby does not believe in the right of Americans to own weapons: They want to ban all guns. See Chicago, DC, and the longing for "European" gun control. They will use every tragedy to maximum extent in order to actualize their real goal, which is ban guns.

Even total gun control will not stop mass shootings. See: Paris.

By all means, pass whatever law you want in New York, but this is not a real issue, and you should not be imposing your will on me or the people of Vermont.

Do you want our government to have that kind of power?

Absolutely. If even one child dies, it's unacceptable. That's why I support 15 mph speed limits everywhere. For the children. If you really need to travel faster, Lord Obama will grant you a waiver.

Don't you trust our Noble Government?

Last edited by GVChamp; 03 Dec 15, at 19:22.

"The great questions of the day will not be settled by means of speeches and majority decisions but by iron and blood"-Otto Von Bismarck

Convicted Felons in Minn. have their voting rights restored once their sentence is completed. Only those incarcerated, on parole or on probation do not have the right to vote. So the number of Ex felons mentioned as voting in the opinion piece is a nonissue.

Can you give specific sources which back this statement "...yet at the same time he is working overtime to disarm the law abiding citizens of the U.S."

What bills has he offered?

Policies?

He has expressed his opinion but where has that translated into specific action by his Administration?

President Obama has signed 2 gun laws since he has been in office. Both expanded the rights of gun owners.
Allowing gun owners to carry weapons in National Parks and to allow weapons in checked baggage on Amtrack.

The number of people who die in mass shootings is also a statistical non-issue.

Take the absolute worst case. Have a mass shooting every day. Have 10 people die in every mass shooting.

The Mass shooting in California yesterday was the 355th Mass shooting of this year. And there was a second Mass shooting is Georgia also, Dec 2d is the 336th day of the year. We are 20 days ahead of your worst case scenario.

The Mass shooting in California yesterday was the 355th Mass shooting of this year. And there was a second Mass shooting is Georgia also, Dec 2d is the 336th day of the year. We are 20 days ahead of your worst case scenario.

America has more mass shootings per month than we have had since 1996. The population is about 15 times larger. And that doesn't even get into the vast discrepancy between firearms murders (If the US had the same rate as us annual numbers would be 600-800). I'm not suggesting America can or should attempt to replicate our laws, just to point out that what is 'normal' in America is so far off the charts in other modern Western democracies that it is barely comprehensible.

Even in the worst case scenario, Americans are 15 times more likely to die from just kidney diseases then they are from mass shootings.

A significant number of those cases you mention are contingent on an individual's own life choices, and can be mitigated by them independently changing their lifestyles over time (i.e., diet, sleep, better driving etc.). How do you mitigate a near-regular occurrence of mass shootings? Hope it doesn't include you or someone you know next?

Background checks and arms limitations also will not STOP mass shootings. They will reduce their intensity and frequency .

That's kinda what we could use right now.

That means you are imposing HUGE limitations on American rights, essentially equivalent to disarming Americans, to save, maybe, 200 lives a year.

Again, nobody's talking about disarming Americans as a whole. Just keeping guns out of the hands of crazies. And before you make a quip about government overreach, I would argue a system where mental health evals on prospective owners with "at-risk" histories are done independently and approved by a psychologist/psychiatrist on a case by case basis, with a "bill of good health" sent to the proper authorities as proof of sound condition. No breach of patient confidentiality, no breach of HIIPA, and more accountability in the hands of mental health professionals. And who's to say the number of lives to be saved would be capped at 200? What reason would there be not to expect suicide and homicide (non-mass shooting) rates to be affected due to enhanced awareness of mental health in background checks?

Though I will add that I'm aware that current background checks on paper are supposed to account for mental health histories, but for whatever reason are often overlooked or omitted from the process. If what it takes is a better enforcement of the current laws, then I would be absolutely content with that. But as it stands, recent events have made it clear that the way we carry out checks is flawed.

Even total gun control will not stop mass shootings. See: Paris.

And yet they've still got a vastly lower murder per capita and gun violence rate than we do.

By all means, pass whatever law you want in New York, but this is not a real issue, and you should not be imposing your will on me or the people of Vermont.

Funny, because I actually really like how Vermont handles gun culture. I don't know what you think my stance is, but for the record I unequivocally support the second amendment. I completely support your right as an law abiding American citizen to own firearms for hunting, sport, and most importantly to protect yourself from the countless crazies in this world. Furthermore, I also believe that laws limiting magazine sizes, banning suppressors, full auto receivers etc. are asinine, because this does little to deter crazies and miscreants and more to limit the options of law abiding citizens.

What I'm not for, is neglecting mental health when it comes to selling guns. What I'm not for, are people using private and online sales to irresponsibly sell guns to people without prior background checks. And what I'm especially not for, is the perpetuation of a dysfunctional gun culture where guns are seen at polar extremes as scary playthings or as objects of power and glamour. And what I most definitely can't stand, is the fantasy of Johnny Triggerfingers being the big damn hero and saving the day as some sort of CCP average joe superhero. Don't get me wrong, I'm for concealed carry, but I simply can't stand how glamorized gun culture has become.

What I like about Vermont is that gun owners have a great, lasting tradition of treating their guns not as a plaything or a show of status or authority, but as a tool of great power and great responsibility. Many such owners descended from families that often lived and died by the gun, whether it was to hunt for game or defend against predators. This solemness, in my view, is sorely and disappointingly missing from our country's bipolar and convoluted view on guns.

Don't you trust our Noble Government?

I trust our government just about as much as I trust Johnny Triggerfingers.

Certainly not insignificant if we lead the developed world in mass shooting incidents. With the amount of focus on deaths by mass shootings we seem to be awfully okay with the number of incidents we experience compared to other countries.

I don't get it, what's wrong with taking steps like expanding background checks? No one but the extremes on both sides of the political spectrum is talking about the possibility of banning guns wholesale.

UK leads in stabbing and noone asks to ban knives or to register them. Matter of fact even a kid can buy them.

No such thing as a good tax - Churchill

To make mistakes is human. To blame someone else for your mistake, is strategic.

UK leads in stabbing and noone asks to ban knives or to register them. Matter of fact even a kid can buy them.

Numbers Doc. In 2009 there were 270 knife murders in England & Wales, population 55 million. And that is for something pretty much anyone can pick up in any house. That same year the number of gun homicides in the US topped 9,000, with a population less than six times that of England & Wales. In 2012 only 1 US state had a murder rate as low as London, one of the largest & most densely populated cities in the Western world.

There are restrictions on the carrying of knives & there are bans on a wide range of knives & bladed instruments.

Numbers Doc. In 2009 there were 270 knife murders in England & Wales, population 55 million. And that is for something pretty much anyone can pick up in any house. That same year the number of gun homicides in the US topped 9,000, with a population less than six times that of England & Wales. In 2012 only 1 US state had a murder rate as low as London, one of the largest & most densely populated cities in the Western world.

There are restrictions on the carrying of knives & there are bans on a wide range of knives & bladed instruments.

A useful reminder of why I wouldn't line my cat litter try with the Daily Heil: scaremongering, race baiting and selective presentation of data but somehow fails to provide the single most important piece of data relevant to the story. I guess 269 murders looks less scary than a figure of 130,000 assaults derived from survey data (a definition that includes threats not occasioning bodily harm).

In case you were wondering, close to 10,000 people were murdered by firearms in the US that year.

A useful reminder of why I wouldn't line my cat litter try with the Daily Heil

Exactly. No offence to Doktor, but one might as well cite the National Enquirer. In the UK, the Daily Fail is most commonly associated with OAPs (Old Age Pensioners) who need something to get worked up about.

Also...

You can't stop mass shootings by making guns illegal, so that's not a solution.

Is the same as...

You can't stop people taking meth by making it illegal, so that's not a solution.

The US has a demographic problem that ruins statistics.Ghetto blacks killing each other for lack of anything better to do.
Otherwise it would be perfectly fine. Tons of EU countries have plenty of guns,with murder rates close to the civilized parts of US i.e anything not a ghetto.

As for the usefullnes of guns,a comparison of European nations with similar economical and social level will show that more guns=less murders.

Worldwide the murder rates have dropped in the last 25 years.But they dropped faster where gun laws were lax(ed).

Those who know don't speak
He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. Luke 22:36

Yes well. Certainly four times the intentional killing rate in the US compared to the UK (remember if you shoot a burglar in the US it's an intentional killing) but that four times is still very low in world comparison.

As for total crimes, well this is where the criminals getting shot becomes interesting http://www.nationmaster.com/country-...rimes-per-1000
So if I go to the UK I'm as likely to be killed or have a crime committed against me as New Zealand.
If I go to the US I'm four times as likely to be shot, but only a third as likely to be the victim of a crime overall.
Homicides by guns are a small fraction of overall violent crimes.
And here's an American vs Europe comparison that puts to bed most of the myths regarding how violent and dangerous the US is compared to the rest of the world.http://www.germanjoys.eu/2015/10/vio...n-the-usa.html
I'm far more likely to be robbed or violently attacked in NZ or Australia, the likelyhood of me being shot in the US is miniscule in comparison to being beaten up in Sydney and I'm far less likely to be robbed or attacked in the US as well.

In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility.